8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[mudlark]

None of those paths could be fact, based on the damage inside the Pentagon.

Aand the blue one is so far out of wack that is has the plane coming in the complete opposite direction as the debris field, and damage inside the Pentagon!

You're not very good at this whole fact thing are you?

This is Reheat´s proposed NOC debunk

 

[mudlark]

Nothing in this quote suggests a NoC. Middleton was looking SW and saw a plane that was above his line of sight of the Navy Annex. He simply got the distance wrong.

His drawing is inconsistent with Morin's statement in that if the a/c was where he depicts it, Morin would not have even seen it.


Ever drive a three wheeled machine? I have, its easy to tip over especially if you are not watching what you are doing.

Here are most important NoC quotes from Middleton's 2001 interview:

Then when I looked I seen he was kind of fighting with the plane. And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

Of course now we know he was talking about the ANC employee parking lot just like he told CIT and perfectly matching the other ANC guys (and Lagasse) from a completely different perspective. Undeniably NoC. In light of corroboration from Lagasse and Brooks from the opposite perspective it's amazing that you would deny this.

But he also said in 2001:

…when it came down past the Navy Annex it came right down the center of the road here.

So it appeared to be on the center of the road to him AFTER it had passed the Navy Annex. If it was south of Columbia Pike as required by the official flight path he likely would have never seen it at all. Of course there is margin of error in his account but there is a reasonable margin of error in relation to Morin, Paik, and the full NoC approach while his account is completely irreconcilable with the official flight path.

And he also said:

I guess he was losing altitude because you see he was fighting with it, and then he just, once he got it straightened out the way he wanted it to go after he, he just, you could just, sounded like he opened the throttle up. Because you know how when a plane is landing how it has that little whistling sound, that’s the way it sound when it came past me like he had, slow to make his turn and then when he got where he wanted to go he just went full throttle.

So he is very distinctly describing a relatively slow moving, banking plane, that looked and sounded like it was coming in for a landing but throttled up AFTER it passed him and banked.

Sorry but this isn't even close to the required perfectly straight official flight path and extreme speed. It is fatally contradictory to it but it supports the other witnesses in the area who also prove the official story false.

What don't you get here?

 

[mudlark]

Farmer, mind telling me how this link has anything to do with the proposed ´NOC math´ based on various parameters including the official speed which various witnesses conradict?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162306

You STILL claiming that the plane never went over the Annex AT ALL according to these plotted points?
All 20 odd witnesses ´misremembered´?

Official path

Albert Hemphill:


QUOTE
The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the Annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike. [1]



Christopher Munsey:


QUOTE
I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking “whoomp,” as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. [2]



Darius Prather:


QUOTE
It was on top of the Navy Annex. [3]



Darrel Stafford:


QUOTE
I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at right of it. It was on this corner of it. [4]



Donald Carter:


QUOTE
We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over. [...]
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?
It was more on this side. Right on this side. [5]



Edward Paik:


QUOTE
It was coming from here, very low, it almost hit my head. I thought it might hit the Navy Annex building's roof. That’s why I was running and I looked at the Navy Annex building and it wasn’t touched.

Frank Probst:


QUOTE
As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. [7]



James Mosley:


QUOTE
James Mosley, 57, was four stories up on a scaffold, washing the windows of the Navy Annex building when the plane flew overhead. [8]



Mike Dobbs:


QUOTE
I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy Annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course.


R.E. Rabogliatti:


QUOTE
R. E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building.


Sean Boger:


QUOTE
When I saw the plane he was practically in front of the Navy Annex.

Aldo: ..did it come over the Navy Annex to the right, to the middle or more to your left?

Boger : I would say more to the right also.


Levi Stephens:


QUOTE
I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex


William Yeingst:


QUOTE
I saw the plane coming over the Navy Annex building


George Aman:


QUOTE
I was looking and it came right over the top of Navy Annex.[17]


##Sources:

http://pentagonreports.blogspot.com/2008/07/schede-testimoni-il-sorvolo-della-navy.html

http://www.thepentacon.com/ona.htm

William Middleton interview (Patton Drive)

QUOTE

Then when I looked I seen he was kind of fighting with the plane. And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

…when it came down past the Navy Annex it came right down the center of the road here.

Original CMH interview

http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

 

[carlitos]

question for mudlark

mudlark, your logic is eluding me, so would you be kind enough to answer a question?

What percent weight would you give to the various forms of evidence for the Pentagon/flight 77 on 9/11/01?

Here is mine. I'm not a detective, so if some of these are miscategorized, feel free to correct them.

• 20% Physical evidence (building damage)
• 50% Forensic evidence (passenger/crew DNA, plane parts)
• 20% Documentary evidence (radar, phone calls, missing plane and passengers)
• 10% Eyewitness testimony (ALL the witnesses, not just the 13 CIT found)

It seems to me that you are relying on a small percentage of eyewitnesses, and you don't count the other types of evidence. Is this accurate?

 

[Reheat]

What don't you get here?

A very appropriate question to ask yourself. Just like Ranquist, you just don't get the fact that if Middleton were even remotely correct then both Paik and Morin were totally wrong with their descriptions. It's not even close.

Just like Ranquist you contend that those ridiculous arcs from my rendition of attempting to make your witnesses statements fit together are absurd. I agree that the arcs are indeed absurd, however you (Ranquist) try to convince everyone this is what occurred. It is the result of attempting to make your witness statements fit. They don't fit at all because just as I've shown the flight path is impossible for an earth based aircraft.

Every time you show that graphic it debunks your absurd theory. It's not my theory, it's an attempt to fit the flight path described by your witnesses together into a logical sequence. If you think that graphic is absurd then give it up!

 

[The Big Dog]

If not show me the math that contradicts Pilotsfor911truth´s paper

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

If it IS, exactly WHAT is this flightpath based on?

Damn, son, you and the CIT morons are like a broken record. I already explained to you and your puppet masters Craig and Fat Aldo what was wrong with PFFT's garbage path and math.

At least five times. I am not going to do it again.

It is clear that if CIT had the math to back up even one of their idiotic paths (including the pull down and pull up) they and you would have supplied it, you haven't because they don't.

Should I ask again again why the CITiots won't release their raw video like they promised?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Tell me yes or no, is this path what your ´math´ is based on?

No. Apparently I must repeat myself, because you will never do not understand what is wrong with your fantasy argument:

Several of us have provided links to real math, while noting Rob Balsamo's stupefying incompetence in that subject.

As 16.5 noted above, neither you nor Balsamo have presented a coherent north-of-Citgo flight path.

Hundreds of regularly scheduled flights pass north of that building every day, most of them hundreds of miles north, so nobody is saying an aircraft can't fly north of that building. The question is whether the specific flight path you advocate was possible. We have been unable to determine that because you have yet to specify a specific flight path.

You have cited the infallibility of witnesses who say the aircraft flew north of Citgo and knocked down light poles in places where there is no record of light poles ever standing. When pressed to address that problem or others, you have continued to spam us with images and irrelevant text.

You offer nothing but air, whipped into a froth of words and images.

At one point, you did show us an aerial photograph on which 8 or 9 different north-of-Citgo flight paths were shown, all converging at the point of impact (after missing the five light poles that were knocked down). Those flight paths were alleged to be the flight paths witnessed by the north-of-Citgo witnesses. Given your insistence upon the infallibility of those witnesses, we must conclude that 8 or 9 distinct aircraft flew north of Citgo before impacting the Pentagon. We must also conclude that at least two of them struck light poles where light poles were not struck.

Unfortunately, you have also given the impression of denying those logical consequences of your argument. Hence it would be a waste of time for PfT or us or anybody to run the math on those specific 8 or 9 flight paths. Your logical inconsistency already refutes your argument.

If and when you get around to describing a flight path and making a consistent argument, your argument and flight path will need to be backed up by mathematics and physics.

The flight path witnessed by the south-of-Citgo witnesses, with all the noise and variability to be expected of eyewitnesses to a fast-moving dramtic event, has been attested also by ground radar, by the downed light poles, generator trailer, angle of entry, damage to interior columns, locations of passenger DNA, and the flight data recorder. That flight path, unlike yours, has already been backed up by mathematics and physics.

Will

 

[beachnut]

Farmer, mind telling me how this link has anything to do with the proposed ´NOC math´ based on various parameters including the official speed which various witnesses conradict?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162306

You STILL claiming that the plane never went over the Annex AT ALL according to these plotted points?
All 20 odd witnesses ´misremembered´?

Official path

All the NoC paths are not possible. If you have a favorite path out of the many presented by CIT please show us the flight path that even CIT witnesses claim knocked down lampposts and impacted the Pentagon.

All the witnesses statements support the final track found in the FDR. The FDR found in the Pentagon. This makes your support of CIT delusions pure nonsense.

How do you ignore the RADAR data? How can you ignore evidence and support the delusional interpretation of witnesses by CIT?

Have you taken your revelation to your parents, teachers, news outlets, police, FBI, your representative; who have you contacted with this Pulitzer Prize worthy information? NO ONE!?

You can't tell anyone because you are spewing nonsense and you don't comprehend that fact.

 

[BCR]

Farmer, mind telling me how this link has anything to do with the proposed ´NOC math´ based on various parameters including the official speed which various witnesses conradict?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162306

You STILL claiming that the plane never went over the Annex AT ALL according to these plotted points?
All 20 odd witnesses ´misremembered´?

Official path

No mudlark, I am claiming nothing. The radar, fdr, physical damage and yes, eyewitness accounts do not support any 'over the annex' flight path. Sorry, but that is what the data says. If you have an eyewitness, or a hundred eyewitnesses that say otherwise, then they are simply mistaken.

 

[HyJinX]

This is Reheat´s proposed NOC debunk

Actually...the only thing that Reheat's debunk includes is the physical and proven data evidence. There is no need to debunk NoC claims...because there's no reason to refute the actual evidence. NoC is as valid a claim as Godzilla did it. It's nonsense to even think NoC is relevant.

 

[TruthersLie]

No mudlark, I am claiming nothing. The radar, fdr, physical damage and yes, eyewitness accounts do not support any 'over the annex' flight path. Sorry, but that is what the data says. If you have an eyewitness, or a hundred eyewitnesses that say otherwise, then they are simply mistaken.

It is funny how twoofs go and interview folks WELL after the fact (YEARS LATER) and then try to make their statements as if they were fully accurate.

I mean we all know how time often affects our memories. Great example
Four guys... matthew, mark, luke and john (no not the beatles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

wildly differing accounts of the same dude, written well after he died. No wonder the christian church is so ****ed up.

Instead of taking eyewitness testimony WELL after the fact, look at the physical evidence... it is overwhelming.

 

[TruthersLie]

Actually...the only thing that Reheat's debunk includes is the physical and proven data evidence. There is no need to debunk NoC claims...because there's no reason to refute the actual evidence. NoC is as valid a claim as Godzilla did it. It's nonsense to even think NoC is relevant.

how many times do I have to tell you.

Mothra did it.

 

[HyJinX]

how many times do I have to tell you.

Mothra did it.

Ah...yes...how quickly I forgot Mothra.

 

[TruthersLie]

here is an eyewitness rendition of the mothra attack

http://www.silverfish-uk.com/cms-files/mothra-web1.jpg

see... mothra did it.
http://www.onlyinternet.net/awinterrowd/kaiju/gallery/mothra-larva.jpg
http://www.littleblackstar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mothra3.jpg

Edited for rule 4.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

see. mothra done it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No mudlark, I am claiming nothing. The radar, fdr, physical damage and yes, eyewitness accounts do not support any 'over the annex' flight path. Sorry, but that is what the data says. If you have an eyewitness, or a hundred eyewitnesses that say otherwise, then they are simply mistaken.

It is worth noting that, as a matter of geometry, the "over the annex" mistake is a very natural mistake for eyewitnesses to make.

Consider BCR's unofficial flight path, which is currently the best available estimate of the actual flight path. To take just one example, an eyewitness positioned just south of the southwest corner of the Pentagon would perceive the aircraft as "over the annex" when the aircraft is at the position marked -1, even though the actual position of the aircraft at that moment is about halfway between the annex and the Pentagon (and south of the Citgo). That's just a geometrical fact.

The same goes for eyewitnesses at almost any other position that lies sufficiently far from the flight path. If their position allowed them to see the aircraft in line with the annex, then the altitude of the aircraft combined with the ground-level altitude of the observer would have made the aircraft appear to be "over the annex" at that moment.

From this geometrical fact, an eyewitness who reports seeing the aircraft fly "over the annex" does not count as evidence that the aircraft actually flew over the annex unless the eyewitness also reports that the aircraft flew directly over the eyewitness.

If an eyewitness reports that the aircraft did not fly directly over the eyewitness, then the eyewitness was not positioned along the line of flight. From such an eyewitness, a report that the aircraft flew "over the annex" counts not as evidence for the flight path actually going over the annex, but as evidence that the eyewitness was correctly reporting what it would have looked like when the aircraft and annex were lined up with the eyewitness.

Will

 

[mudlark]

mudlark, your logic is eluding me, so would you be kind enough to answer a question?

What percent weight would you give to the various forms of evidence for the Pentagon/flight 77 on 9/11/01?

Here is mine. I'm not a detective, so if some of these are miscategorized, feel free to correct them.

• 20% Physical evidence (building damage)
• 50% Forensic evidence (passenger/crew DNA, plane parts)
• 20% Documentary evidence (radar, phone calls, missing plane and passengers)
• 10% Eyewitness testimony (ALL the witnesses, not just the 13 CIT found)

It seems to me that you are relying on a small percentage of eyewitnesses, and you don't count the other types of evidence. Is this accurate?

The physical damage could NOT have been caused by an NOC trajectory.

There is no documented evidence as to identification of plane parts.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21304

Despite these extensive and detailed search efforts, RIDS located no FBI records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Id. The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question and because other evidence collected after September 11, 2001, has corroborated the identity of the hijacked aircraft.

Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft,

There is no documentation on the chain of custody on DNA.

The RADES data on the C130 contradicted by numerous witnesses and even the pilot himself, places a huge question mark over its validity.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=116

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=325

The NOC testimony, not only from the group that CIT has confirmed , but from many more who I have listed earlier in this thread, negate the validity of this ´documentary evidence´

I won´t speculate as to what happened to the passengers and plane as that is all it would be. Speculation.

10% of witnesses?
Make that 100% who have been confirmed within the North of Citgo area.
Not one has been found that contradict them in any way.
Not one SOC witness has been put forward.
Of all the witness links posted here nobody contradicts the NOC witnesses. Many actually reinforce it.

 

[mudlark]

A very appropriate question to ask yourself. Just like Ranquist, you just don't get the fact that if Middleton were even remotely correct then both Paik and Morin were totally wrong with their descriptions. It's not even close.

Just like Ranquist you contend that those ridiculous arcs from my rendition of attempting to make your witnesses statements fit together are absurd. I agree that the arcs are indeed absurd, however you (Ranquist) try to convince everyone this is what occurred. It is the result of attempting to make your witness statements fit. They don't fit at all because just as I've shown the flight path is impossible for an earth based aircraft.

Every time you show that graphic it debunks your absurd theory. It's not my theory, it's an attempt to fit the flight path described by your witnesses together into a logical sequence. If you think that graphic is absurd then give it up!

For a start, your path from the Navy Annex on are derived from twisting the testimony of both Paik and Morin.
You contend that the plane never crossed the Annex based on a manipulated gif of Ed Paik even though he clearly states in CIT´s interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/paikheading1.gif

Body this way

The gif that you repeatedly show is in relation to Craig Ranke asking Ed Paik the ALTITUDE of the plane as it passed over him. He was pointing at the roof of the building as a perspective. NOT the direction it took.

He then drew the path he says that it took

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-3.jpg

NOC. It went OVER the Annex according to him, NOT parallel to it, as is backed up by many more witnesses quoted in my earlier post.

In CIT´s interview with Morin

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html

06:50

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

(...)

CRAIG: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE SOUTHSIDE, SOUTH OF COLUMBIA PIKE?

MORIN: NO FRICKIN´ WAY. IT FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME

(...)

¨I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨

He was INSIDE the wings. The plane flew over the top of him. Not to the side. Not parallel to the wings. Over the Annex.

Before you start on him ´witnessing the impact´ or mentioning the Memorial..

The plane was allegedly travelling at 540+mph/780fps
The Annex is 864 ft long. Half that length from his POV.
So in half a second this guy ran ´10 feet´ from within the wings after seeing the plane above him and reacting, then had how long to witness and describe the descent?

Even if, as I believe, the plane was flying slower

¨MORIN: HE WASN´T FLYING 500 KNOTS...OH NO, NO, NO..HE WAS FLYING 350¨

¨IT TOOK 13-18 SECONDS ´(BETWEEN NAVY ANNEX AND EXPLOSION)

..we are still talking in fractions of a second.

Here is Ingersoll´s pic taken within minutes of the explosion from roughly his described POV

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ingersolnavyannex.jpg

and Pilotsfor911Truth´s animation of his proposed view of the SOC descent

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif

Both of them place the plane OVER the Annex. THAT is why your paths are both deceptive and absurd, NOT the corraborrated NOC witness testimony.

Pilotsfor911truth have provided the math for the NOC average of paths that were actually witnessed. They have proven, even at the official speed that it was hypothetically possible.

 

[mudlark]

Damn, son, you and the CIT morons are like a broken record. I already explained to you and your puppet masters Craig and Fat Aldo what was wrong with PFFT's garbage path and math.

At least five times. I am not going to do it again.

It is clear that if CIT had the math to back up even one of their idiotic paths (including the pull down and pull up) they and you would have supplied it, you haven't because they don't.

Should I ask again again why the CITiots won't release their raw video like they promised?

Link where you ´explained´ to me.
In between insults and non information I may have missed it ´five times´.
The ´idiotic paths´ are what was described by the witnesses.
You are basing the ´pull down and pull up´ on the 540+mph speed that is in serious doubt.

Albert Hemphill

´The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots.´

Sean Boger

´8-15 seconds´

Mike Dobbs

Viewing from 4th floor west face of Pentagon

´"... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ...´
THEN he had time to run away and NOT hear or feel the explosion.

William Middleton

Because you know how when a plane is landing how it has that little whistling sound, that’s the way it sound when it came past me like he had, slow to make his turn and then when he got where he wanted to go he just went full throttle.

(...)

´10-15 seconds (from the Annex to the building)

Donald Carter

´It glided over the Annex´


Terry Morin


HE WASN´T FLYING 500 KNOTS...OH NO, NO, NO..HE WAS FLYING 350¨

¨IT TOOK 13-18 SECONDS ´(BETWEEN NAVY ANNEX AND EXPLOSION)

It is also based on the official altitude to which the plane descended and which NONE of the witnesses around the lawn area described.

Wanda Ramey, Sean Boger, Lincoln Liebner, Noel Sepulveda all claim that the plane was at third floor level as it crossed the lawn. Wanda Ramey even claimed that it ´skipped up´ as do others who were stuck in traffic along Route 27.

Your math is based on extremes. Pilots have taken these excessive
NON witness based speeds and still proven them possible.

All arcs/radii less than 60º, less than 2g at 460 knots (FDR speed)

757 speed limitations:
velocity max operating(vmo) = 350 knots
Flight data recorder speed = 460 knots

 

[mudlark]

No. Apparently I must repeat myself, because you will never do not understand what is wrong with your fantasy argument:

I have followed the links you posted. NONE address the math regarding the NOC path posted.
Post a direct link to this specific argument and I will post it on to Balsamo.
He told me that the links that you DID post were calculations which ignored topography and obstacles.
He also said that you are not banned from the site if you wish to discuss it there.

Simply stating that ´you may get banned´ is a copout IMO. I would personally like to see a debate so we ALL can understand exactly where
the disagreement is.

At one point, you did show us an aerial photograph on which 8 or 9 different north-of-Citgo flight paths were shown, all converging at the point of impact (after missing the five light poles that were knocked down).

Of course they missed the lightpoles. The plane didn´t go near them from NOC. Again, these paths were described by the witnesses, not me.

Those flight paths were alleged to be the flight paths witnessed by the north-of-Citgo witnesses. Given your insistence upon the infallibility of those witnesses, we must conclude that 8 or 9 distinct aircraft flew north of Citgo before impacting the Pentagon. We must also conclude that at least two of them struck light poles where light poles were not struck.

Not ´alleged´. They confirmed it on camera and drew their own paths.
Not ALL are going to EXACTLY agree on the EXACT path but they ALL have one theme in common. They ALL place the plane NOC. None of them disagree on this point. The plane flew between the Navy Annex and Arlington Cemetery.
If by witnessing ´lightpoles being struck´ you are referring to Lagasse and Brooks. In the CIT interview with them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

Brooks admitted he did not see the lightpoles being struck.
Lagasse ASSUMED the poles were where he had imagined because that is where he saw the plane. The fact that this pointis continually raised given the logical explanation is getting tired and visibly deceptive.

Unfortunately, you have also given the impression of denying those logical consequences of your argument. Hence it would be a waste of time for PfT or us or anybody to run the math on those specific 8 or 9 flight paths. Your logical inconsistency already refutes your argument.

So there is no math to refute it?
The ´logical inconsistency´ here is that witnesses who claim to have seen the plane NOC, flying OVER the Navy Annex or seeing the right-bank ALL misremembered.

If and when you get around to describing a flight path and making a consistent argument, your argument and flight path will need to be backed up by mathematics and physics.

Pilots have plotted a hypothetical flightpath based on the sum of all the NOC witnesses. They have also done their best in trying to include all possible parameters. You want an EXACT path based on witness testimony?

The flight path witnessed by the south-of-Citgo witnesses, with all the noise and variability to be expected of eyewitnesses to a fast-moving dramtic event, has been attested also by ground radar, by the downed light poles, generator trailer, angle of entry, damage to interior columns, locations of passenger DNA, and the flight data recorder. That flight path, unlike yours, has already been backed up by mathematics and physics.

Will

Again with the ´SOC witnesses¨?? WHO ARE THEY?
You base your maths on RADES/FDR data that has not in any way been backed by ANY witness in the immediate and surrounding area.
Not one confirmed witness saw either the trajectory nor position of entry onto Route 27.
There is no official documentation of chain of custody of this ´passenger DNA´ as with Flight 77´s plane parts.
Even the entire saga of how the FDR was actually ´found´ raises eyebrows (not here apparently)
The damage you cite from the lightpoles on to final point of penetration is totally inconsistent with witnesses.

Your math and physics are based on government supplied data.
Witness testimony is the only impartial way to sort this argument out.

 

[mudlark]

All the NoC paths are not possible. If you have a favorite path out of the many presented by CIT please show us the flight path that even CIT witnesses claim knocked down lampposts and impacted the Pentagon.

I´d be interested in seeing the math to counter this paper.
I will pass it on to Pilotsfor911truth and post the reply if mods allow me to.

All the witnesses statements support the final track found in the FDR. The FDR found in the Pentagon. This makes your support of CIT delusions pure nonsense.

´All of them´? Names? Quotes/links? Ya know, the usual when making a statement on a debate forum.

How do you ignore the RADAR data? How can you ignore evidence and support the delusional interpretation of witnesses by CIT?

RADAR data that is totally contradictory to witnesses? Including the C130 RADES placement which even the PILOT contradicts?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=116

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=325